I've finally taken some time to do some serious research on the candidates, and I've made my decision. I don't care if the elections are a year off; there is already plenty of information out there to base my decision off of.
Hilary Clinton is more than just a worthless, soulless, mean-spirited devil woman; her plans literally scare me. The prospect of socialized medicine is very, very disturbing, as are her other social welfare ideas.
Obama is bland, and he also supports socialized medicine. There isn't a great deal to like or dislike about him... but he definitely strikes me as a douche.
The republican candidates all piss me off because of how much they cater to the religious right. I could live with Giuliani as President, but he still caters to those conservative christian morons.
All things considered, Ron Paul is the best choice. I *love* his stance on cutting the government way the f*** back, as well as his support of free markets, federalism, etc.. Unfortunately, he is also caught up in the whole religious thing, but not to the degree that the others are. I also don't like the fact that he gives the 9/11 Truthers the time of day... I would completely forsake him for this if he hadn't already come out and said that he doesn't believe their message. For some reason he's also against abortion rights, which is entirely contrary to the rest of his message. Oh well.
Ron Paul is kind of a weird little dude, and by no means my ideal candidate; but he's a hell of a lot closer than anyone else.
Oct 25 2007, 1:16 pm
|
|
Worldweaver
 |
Have you really taken a good hard look into his foreign policy?
|
I dont know why you americans are afraid of socialized medicine. Its so stupid, canada has had it forever and our dollar is ahead of yours.
It wont doom your economy, why wouldnt you want medicine of all things to be socialized. You guys can be so soulless at times. | |
I support socialized medicine. =]
I support Obama. kthx. EDIT: Masterdan, back to studying. >=O | |
LOL BIGboid called me on it. Its hard to study!
| |
ron paul is just like george bush except he stole my macro bar
| |
For some reason he's also against abortion rights, which is entirely contrary to the rest of his message. Not necessarily. I like this bit from http://www.instapunk.com/archives/ InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=149 : As it happens, the Constitution is not at all silent about how Americans should decide the abortion issue. The answer lies in the Bill of Rights, which displays a completely consistent determination that the individual, however poor and defenseless, should not be abused by the state simply because the state has more power than he does. Whatever his station, he has a right to a fair trial, and he must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.... It takes nothing like the kind of semantic trickery underpinning Roe V. Wade to see how this philosphical bent of the framers relates to the abortion question. If a fetus is a life, no one has the right under the Constitution to kill it. And as for deciding the question of when life begins, the Constitution's intrinsic prejudice is on the side of the fetus, because we have an obligation to prove that the fetus is not a life before declaring that it has no rights. | |
Bah, I'm voting Colbert.
| |
Masterdan wrote:
It wont doom your economy, why wouldnt you want medicine of all things to be socialized. You guys can be so soulless at times. First of all, your comparison with the dollar really has nothing to do with socialized medicine. Second, health care is not a right. No one is born with a free ticket to Disneyland, a free meal at McDonalds or a free pair of shoes. The fact that people need health care doesn't entitle them to it. People who advocate socialized medicine want to turn Doctors into slaves; slaves to their need. "Why should I have to pay that Doctor for his services? I need medicine". Sure the government will pay them; a set rate that isn't based upon their ability. I have no obligation to pay taxes for someone else's health care. They have no right to my money simply because they need it. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Masterdan wrote: How bout instead of your tax dollars paying for global conflict where you destabilize regions. You spend a quarter of that money to take care of the needy people IN your borders. Thats the problem. Its all about priorities. America needs to start putting more money into natural disasters and health care and education (PLEASE) instead of wasting it on blowing shit up. You do pay taxes, and one of the few things that deserves that combined money is medicine. To think the number one cause of bankrupcy is due to healthcare. Thats ridiculous, talk about adding insult to injury. | |
Masterdan wrote:
How bout instead of your tax dollars paying for global conflict where you destabilize regions. Judging by his pro-Ron stance I'm going to say that he doesn't enjoy paying for those. | |
Speaking on the link that Gughunter posted:
I'll quote this article: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5105 "What of the fetus? Does it have rights which must be respected? The concept of rights is based on man's nature and presupposes the existence of an actual, fully formed and separate human being. Fetuses and embryos are not actual human beings; they are potential human beings. They have no rights until they exist apart from the mother, i.e., at birth." A fetus does not have more of a right to a woman's body than she does... and the state certainly shouldn't have control over her body. A fetus is essentially a parasite... early on it's a raisin-sized collection of cells. Later on in the pregnancy: "This is not to condone the morality of arbitrarily delaying an abortion until the last months of pregnancy--when the fetus is approaching humanness. But the function of the law is to protect rights--not to dictate moral issues which involve no violation of rights." | |
Consdering that the alternative to a 'socialised healthcare system' (i.e., what every other first-world nation on Earth has) is only the rich ever being able to afford health care, and the poor getting into ridiculous amounts of debt because they were unlucky and got some fingers cut off, I'm very much for a sane medical system.
Society will always have people working on minimum-wage. There's always going to be the people at the bottom who haul stuff around for a living. They should be able to have a reasonable, happy life. Having access to healthcare is part of that. | |
Masterdan wrote:
How bout instead of your tax dollars paying for global conflict where you destabilize regions. You spend a quarter of that money to take care of the needy people IN your borders. I am all for cutting off every single foreign-aid program and getting out of the expensive and essentially futile conflict in Iraq. Does that answer your question? No other country is entitled to our aid or support simply because we are the richest. You do pay taxes, and one of the few things that deserves that combined money is medicine. To think the number one cause of bankrupcy is due to healthcare. Thats ridiculous, talk about adding insult to injury. Again, you're operating on the premise that health care is a right, which is incorrect. I don't believe that the Government should tax people, but I don't foresee taxes being completely repealed in my lifetime. I am happy to pay taxes for the services that I depend on, and that are the proper function of government: police, fire, military, the justice system. I loathe the fact that my tax dollars go to fund welfare and social programs. | |
Jp wrote:
I'm very much for a sane medical system. The only sane medical system is a free-market system in which doctors don't become the unwitting slaves of their patients. Society will always have people working on minimum-wage. There's always going to be the people at the bottom who haul stuff around for a living. They should be able to have a reasonable, happy life. Having access to healthcare is part of that. First, I don't believe that making minimum wage excludes them from the possiblity of having health care... especially in a free market where making medicine inexpensive enough for lower-income people would make good business sense. Second, if someone can't afford health care, are you suggesting that I am entitled to provide it for them? Don't answer with "No, you aren't, but we are"... because it still boils down to me. | |
First, I don't believe that making minimum wage excludes them from the possiblity of having health care... especially in a free market where making medicine inexpensive enough for lower-income people would make good business sense. The US healthcare system isn't free-market enough for you? Second, if someone can't afford health care, are you suggesting that I am entitled to provide it for them? Don't answer with "No, you aren't, but we are"... because it still boils down to me. Yes. And here's the lovely thing - if you require healthcare, other people are entitled to provide it to you. If done right, you get a nice healthy society in which people don't die of preventable diseases because they can't afford treatment. Also good for preventing epidemics. Education comes down to the same thing. And in a society where everybody has a decent level of education, crime drops! Amazing! Beneficial effects of a fair society! | |
Jp wrote:
The US healthcare system isn't free-market enough for you? Not even close; with all of the Government regulations and programs like Medicaire, it's far from it. Yes. And here's the lovely thing - if you require healthcare, other people are entitled to provide it to you. How about if I require a new car? Should my neighbor buy me one? Should I get one for him if his breaks down? No human being is his brother's keeper, and no one is entitled to that which his neighbor owns. What you are talking about is legalized theft; if my neighbor's daughter is sick and dying, does he have the right to break into my house and steal my wallet? THAT is the moral equivalent of what you propose. If we're all just going to share our money so that everyone has an equal amount of everything, why don't we just have the government assign jobs to everyone when they turn 18? What difference does it make what you do for a living if everyone else is entitled to your wealth? Do you see the road that your beliefs take you down? Education comes down to the same thing. And in a society where everybody has a decent level of education, crime drops! Amazing! Beneficial effects of a fair society! Oh, so it's fair that a bunch of deadbeat losers live on the welfare that I pay for, and send their kids to school for an education that I funded? If you think that that is somehow beneficial to me, I'd really like to hear how! People who are in favor of socialized programs come in two flavors; those who want others to do everything for them, and those who believe that the best of us ought to bring ourselves down to the level of the lowest so that we can all live in harmony. The final sum of both trains of thought is simply "zero". | |
I guess youve had lots of opportunities and have had a good life. Now you take your blessings and look at people who have had rough lives or who are terminally ill and say FU buddy, i earned my money, you dont see me getting cancer. Americans tend to have your attitude, we have all the money and therefor why do you deserve any? Well Canada is in my mind a great country because our attitude is so much different. Youd never catch a Canadian saying that the poor dont deserve a share of societies combined wealth to pay for things that are out of their control. Its just.. its just the most evil and self centered attitude ive ever heard of. Cutting off foreign aid? your the most powerful country in the world, if you dont help stabilize countries and prevent genocide, then you deserve it when an airplane flies into your buildings. We fight for prevention, you fight for revenge. With power and wealth comes responsibility, its easy to revile a nation bloated with greed with a bad attitude towards sharing.
Treating people with mental illnesses, investing in education prevents crime. Thats why your crime rate is so high. Investing id medicine keeps people healthy and able to work for longer and benefits society when their skills arent thrown away because they cant afford a checkup to catch the early signs of cancer. Its economics really, putting money into social programs improves conditions in society to generate the most wealth for everybody. | |
Masterdan wrote:
I guess youve had lots of opportunities and have had a good life. Now you take your blessings and look at people who have had rough lives or who are terminally ill and say FU buddy, i earned my money You're damn right I earned my money, and that no one else is entitled to it! Did the guy with a rough life who lives on welfare go to class at college everyday for four years to get a degree? Did he stay up late night-after-night writing papers and finishing up homework? Did he work an unpaid-internship for a full summer to prove himself, to gain experience in his desired career field? Did he bust his ass to get a good job that pays well? No. I did those things. My life, my money. I'd like to know why you think that I had lots of opportunities. Are those the only types of people who are successful? Is every single person born with a destiny to be either rich or poor? Are we all a bunch of doomed beggars crying out for someone else's help? Well Canada is in my mind a great country because our attitude is so much different. Youd never catch a Canadian saying that the poor dont deserve a share of societies combined wealth to pay for things that are out of their control. To a degree, whether or not I get cancer is out of my control. Making sure that I have health insurance, savings and an income to support myself incase I do get cancer IS in my control. Oh wait... is what I'm taking about implying that a person has to take responsiblity for their own life and own actions? ...But why can't someone else do that for me?! ts just.. its just the most evil and self centered attitude ive ever heard of. Let it be known; you are talking to one of the most selfish, self centered individuals you will ever meet; and I'm damn proud of it. if you dont help stabilize countries and prevent genocide, then you deserve it when an airplane flies into your buildings. Oh boy. Do you really want to go there? You're saying that if we don't give other people our money, that they are entitled to kill us? If I'm walking home tonight and I don't give a beggar my pocket change, he can murder me for my wallet? As scary as that statement is, THAT is the philosophy of a true socialist. its easy to revile a nation bloated with greed with a bad attitude towards sharing. I guess that if you're moocher it's easy to hate someone who won't let you mooch. To say that sharing is a morale absolute is a bad attitude. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
To a degree, whether or not I get cancer is out of my control. Making sure that I have health insurance, savings and an income to support myself incase I do get cancer IS in my control. Weeeeell... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#Prevention Not total control, of course, but there are things you can do to reduce your risk a bit. Edit: Didn't notice you said 'to a degree'. Oh well. That and the earlier you catch it, the easier it can be to get rid of it. My mother found out she had the beginning stages of uterus cancer...right before she was about to get a hysterectomy. She was lucky in that even if she didn't know about it, the cancer would've been inadvertantly removed anyway but early detection can go a long way. I guess it's like trying to pull weeds early rather than letting them grow (like the time my uncle grew a 6 foot weed in front of our house while we were away in Greece). | |